Hancock began life as a good idea and with a very intriguing premise; it bills itself as the alternative superhero film by aiming to show that the Superhero can be humanized. The film centers on a down and out alcoholic superhero called Hancock, played by the ever impressive Will Smith. He is a superhero that causes destruction and fuels his own public hatred where ever he goes due to his lifestyle and his indolence. It becomes fortunate therefore that one day he should save the life of PR man (Jason Bateman), who is married to the lovely Mary (Charlize Theron) and that in return for saving his life he chooses to help Hancock change his image.
The film starts well by introducing us to Hancock asleep, scruffy and unshaven on a public bench but ultimately establishing him as a lousy, grumpy oaf. As the film progresses Hancock evolves into a very endearing character, his apathy and self loathing - exhibited by his alcoholism, are all traits that manage to humanize the myths that surround super human beings. The fact that his physical prowess and lifestyle choice is his undoing is an interesting concept and in some quarters would be regarded as a microcosm of the manner in which gifted, black American men have been marginalized over the years (but this is a short review and I don't want to get that deep... however, examples that come to mind, and help to support this theory, are such great physical talents like Ed Moses, Shaquille O'Neil, Carl Lewis, Jesse Owen etc) some film scholars will no doubt give more precedence to this side of the film.
Many critics have labeled the film as being unequal and disjointed and I would have to say that I agree. The first half of the film is amusing, engaging and quite plausible (given its premise) but upon the introduction of a second hero with equal powers the film quickly descends into the farcical. For example, some of the early scenes have Hancock exhibiting his strength in often mundane scenarios from dragging a car up a driveway to dunking a basketball from over 50 meters away but given there placement in the context of the film they are clearly the conceivable actions of a super strong human being. During the latter stages of the film this demonstration of strength becomes inane and coarse, epitomized by a scene in which the two superheroes battle it out the sky, throwing each other across blocks and through buildings, and affecting the weather to such an extent that lightening, twisters and snowfall all takes place. This is ultimately where the film falls down as it resorts to the clichés that are so often witnessed in films of this genre. Ultimately this decline is driven by a foolishly executed back-story that has no place in the film and should have been erased the moment it was conceived. The internal logic of the film is preposterous and nonsensical and would remain so even if it was chief plot device in a Saturday morning kids cartoon.
When it comes to the direction it seems surprising to me that Peter Berg should be able to make the leap to making a blockbuster like Hancock, this is because Hancock was always going to be a commercial risk given its target audience and release date and his previous film The Kingdom was not a huge success. In these situations it is normally an established director that is chosen by the studio to carry films of this nature. This is evident from the manner in which the plot, story and narrative transpire to the screen as Berg's direction is gritty, with frantic zooms, sharp fast-pans and steady-cam sequences. His direction does not really complement the film, leading me to believe that in Hancock we have a director that is better than the film he is trying to make, a rarity in film making but it does happen.
Finally, Hancock is probably one of the biggest let downs I have had the misfortune to witness this year. The incoherent story has seriously affected the outcome of this film; it has led to it being almost incomprehensible. The futile subplot and unnecessary twist laid the foundations for the films demise. However, despite my immense disappointment I can still sit back and take light in the performances and the direction, but they can do nothing for my overall feelings towards Hancock.
The film starts well by introducing us to Hancock asleep, scruffy and unshaven on a public bench but ultimately establishing him as a lousy, grumpy oaf. As the film progresses Hancock evolves into a very endearing character, his apathy and self loathing - exhibited by his alcoholism, are all traits that manage to humanize the myths that surround super human beings. The fact that his physical prowess and lifestyle choice is his undoing is an interesting concept and in some quarters would be regarded as a microcosm of the manner in which gifted, black American men have been marginalized over the years (but this is a short review and I don't want to get that deep... however, examples that come to mind, and help to support this theory, are such great physical talents like Ed Moses, Shaquille O'Neil, Carl Lewis, Jesse Owen etc) some film scholars will no doubt give more precedence to this side of the film.
Many critics have labeled the film as being unequal and disjointed and I would have to say that I agree. The first half of the film is amusing, engaging and quite plausible (given its premise) but upon the introduction of a second hero with equal powers the film quickly descends into the farcical. For example, some of the early scenes have Hancock exhibiting his strength in often mundane scenarios from dragging a car up a driveway to dunking a basketball from over 50 meters away but given there placement in the context of the film they are clearly the conceivable actions of a super strong human being. During the latter stages of the film this demonstration of strength becomes inane and coarse, epitomized by a scene in which the two superheroes battle it out the sky, throwing each other across blocks and through buildings, and affecting the weather to such an extent that lightening, twisters and snowfall all takes place. This is ultimately where the film falls down as it resorts to the clichés that are so often witnessed in films of this genre. Ultimately this decline is driven by a foolishly executed back-story that has no place in the film and should have been erased the moment it was conceived. The internal logic of the film is preposterous and nonsensical and would remain so even if it was chief plot device in a Saturday morning kids cartoon.
When it comes to the direction it seems surprising to me that Peter Berg should be able to make the leap to making a blockbuster like Hancock, this is because Hancock was always going to be a commercial risk given its target audience and release date and his previous film The Kingdom was not a huge success. In these situations it is normally an established director that is chosen by the studio to carry films of this nature. This is evident from the manner in which the plot, story and narrative transpire to the screen as Berg's direction is gritty, with frantic zooms, sharp fast-pans and steady-cam sequences. His direction does not really complement the film, leading me to believe that in Hancock we have a director that is better than the film he is trying to make, a rarity in film making but it does happen.
Finally, Hancock is probably one of the biggest let downs I have had the misfortune to witness this year. The incoherent story has seriously affected the outcome of this film; it has led to it being almost incomprehensible. The futile subplot and unnecessary twist laid the foundations for the films demise. However, despite my immense disappointment I can still sit back and take light in the performances and the direction, but they can do nothing for my overall feelings towards Hancock.